PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFGB.L achieves a 3.80% return, which is significantly lower than TDGB.L's 8.92% return.


GFGB.L

1D
0.23%
1M
1.06%
YTD
3.80%
6M
3.42%
1Y
10.34%
3Y*
6.58%
5Y*
4.31%
10Y*

TDGB.L

1D
0.48%
1M
-0.06%
YTD
8.92%
6M
11.77%
1Y
29.00%
3Y*
20.13%
5Y*
17.70%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
GFGB.L
VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF
3.80%2.41%7.87%4.27%-2.32%3.31%13.08%8.14%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF
8.92%30.88%10.65%9.06%22.49%19.59%-5.61%10.74%

Correlation

The correlation between GFGB.L and TDGB.L is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.26

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.22

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.25

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2019

0.35

The correlation between GFGB.L and TDGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.22 (3 years) to 0.35 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

GFGB.L
GFGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
GFGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank

TDGB.L
TDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


GFGB.LTDGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.59

-0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.25

6.26

-3.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.50

20.72

-12.22

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is lower than the TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFGB.L and TDGB.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GFGB.LTDGB.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.43

3.15

-1.71

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

1.55

-1.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.67

0.98

-0.31

Drawdowns

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFGB.L drawdown since its inception was -15.95%, smaller than the maximum TDGB.L drawdown of -29.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFGB.L and TDGB.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GFGB.LTDGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.95%

-29.60%

+13.65%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.04%

-4.66%

+1.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.54%

-12.41%

+4.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-10.36%

-12.41%

+2.05%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.13%

-1.47%

+0.34%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.52%

-3.70%

+1.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.16%

1.41%

-0.25%

Volatility

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) has a higher volatility of 3.51% compared to VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L) at 2.49%. This indicates that GFGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GFGB.LTDGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.51%

2.49%

+1.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.86%

7.01%

-1.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.89%

9.28%

-2.39%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.81%

11.42%

-3.61%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.80%

14.44%

-5.64%

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFGB.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than TDGB.L's 0.38% expense ratio.


Dividends

GFGB.L vs. TDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

GFGB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TDGB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.20%.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
GFGB.L
VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF
3.20%3.50%4.27%4.93%4.40%4.06%4.16%4.52%

Frequently Asked Questions


GFGB.L and TDGB.L have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, TDGB.L is cheaper at 0.38% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

TDGB.L is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GFGB.L.

GFGB.L is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while TDGB.L is Global Equities. GFGB.L tracks ICE BofA Gbl HY Constnd TR USD, while TDGB.L tracks Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GFGB.L and 0.38% for TDGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GFGB.L and TDGB.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer